Success of Obamacare, and Debunking Myths

[The Black Forrest]

Point being.....

That lettng people die in the gutters isn't necessarily immoral hence government has no right to deprive people of money by an act of commission (ie taxation) in order to prevent said deaths.

*shrug* you may think that. Most do not. So again sucks to be you.

[Llamalandia]

Translation: "I can't explain it to you".

Nice one.

Fascinating. Your interpretations are rather interesting at times.

So how do you explain selfless acts to a selfish person?

Idk, but I;m not the one making the contention that governemnt redistribution is a selfless act, you are, so as much as I'd like to help this is really more your problem.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Oh yes and yet no one has been able to show me in the aca legislation it says explicitly that the individual mandate is a tax.

We've explained it repeatedly. You've refused to understand because #Sophistry

[Sociobiology]

I kinda hate that meme but yeah, pretty much. Though really, I'd rather talk about how letting people die is different from murdering them and isn't necessarily and immoral act. In fact it is a presumptively neutral one in my estimation.

whereas taxation is just evil.

to me the are just a natural extension of our instincts against high resource inequality and at the same time a wonderful thing for improving society.

[New Werpland]

No I am for libertarianism but yeah, I am pretty sympathetic to anarch0 capitalists I think. Feudalism not so much.

Neo-feudalism arises from strict libertarianism/anarco-capitalism whether you believe in it or not.

In the absence of government, there is nothing to stop corporate exploitation and monopolization. Corporations inevitably become large enough to enforce their own law of the land.

Probably in an Anarcho-Capitalist economy, but definitely not under the Minarchist state.

[Llamalandia]

That lettng people die in the gutters isn't necessarily immoral hence government has no right to deprive people of money by an act of commission (ie taxation) in order to prevent said deaths.

*shrug* you may think that. Most do not. So again sucks to be you.

actually about thirty percent or so agree with me. They are called republicans. (there are a few true christian conservatives who actually buy into to the whole helping the poor thing in the bible and not just hating gays or the percentage would be higher).

[The Black Forrest]

*shrug* you may think that. Most do not. So again sucks to be you.

actually about thirty percent or so agree with me. They are called republicans. (there are a few true christian conservatives who actually buy into to the whole helping the poor thing in the bible and not just hating gays or the percentage would be higher).

Ok source that.

[Llamalandia]

Oh yes and yet no one has been able to show me in the aca legislation it says explicitly that the individual mandate is a tax.

We've explained it repeatedly. You've refused to understand because #Sophistry

Hey i can read show me where it says that explicitly in the legislation and I'll be happy to concede that you and the supreme court are correct, until then it isn't a tax.

[Llamalandia]

actually about thirty percent or so agree with me. They are called republicans. (there are a few true christian conservatives who actually buy into to the whole helping the poor thing in the bible and not just hating gays or the percentage would be higher).

Ok source that.

huh well screw me, guess its probably closer to 25% nowadays. Though Im sure a few independents agree me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

and just to be clear if your are over 18 and dont vote you dont matter.

[Llamalandia]

whereas taxation is just evil.

to me the are just a natural extension of our instincts against high resource inequality and at the same time a wonderful thing for improving society.

High resource inequality is not necessarily a bad thing provided it arose from a system of meritocracy and equal oppurtunity. It means that the best people have the most money. That is how it should be, they know better how to utilize it presumably based on their successfulness.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Hey i can read show me where it says that explicitly in the legislation and I'll be happy to concede that you and the supreme court are correct, until then it isn't a tax.

Here's the section that talks about the amount of the penalty:

(c) Amount of penalty
(1) In general
The amount of the penalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year with respect to failures described in subsection (b)(1) shall be equal to the lesser of—
(A) the sum of the monthly penalty amounts determined under paragraph (2) for months in the taxable year during which 1 or more such failures occurred, or
(B) an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends.

That's a lot of mention of taxpayers and taxable year for a thing that is not a tax.

[Sociobiology]

Neo-feudalism arises from strict libertarianism/anarco-capitalism whether you believe in it or not.

In the absence of government, there is nothing to stop corporate exploitation and monopolization. Corporations inevitably become large enough to enforce their own law of the land.

Probably in an Anarcho-Capitalist economy, but definitely not under the Minarchist state.

actually a minarchist state would have the hardest time stopping it of any state, if they could actually exist.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok source that.

huh well screw me, guess its probably closer to 25% nowadays. Though Im sure a few independents agree me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

and just to be clear if your are over 18 and dont vote you dont matter.

All right. Maybe my scanning powers are bad today but where is the percentage believing it's not immoral to let the poor die?

[Sociobiology]

to me the are just a natural extension of our instincts against high resource inequality and at the same time a wonderful thing for improving society.

High resource inequality is not necessarily a bad thing provided it arose from a system of meritocracy and equal oppurtunity.

no its always a bad thing, it leads to all kinds of problems, (it drags down growth and innovation, impedes employment, increases crime and social unrest, ect.) people generally don't tolerate a disparity of greater than 3/5 without problems. Human's are logical, we evolved spite for a reason.

And generally we already know what we want, https://philebersole.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/wealthdistribution.png often we just don't know how to achieve it. http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/129tn0251.pdf

It means that the best people have the most money.

no it means the luckiest people have the most money.
the problem with defining something by meritocracy is the problem with defining merit.
either you define it by acquiring resources, in which case it is naturally self destructive (short term gains trump slower long term gains just like in a biological system), or you define it by some arbitrary secondary condition which run in to the problem of who decides.

[The Black Forrest]

to me the are just a natural extension of our instincts against high resource inequality and at the same time a wonderful thing for improving society.

It means that the best people have the most money.

If we had a meritocracy sure. Problem is we don't.

I can introduce you to a couple meatsacks who have more money then probably most people here. They inherited it.

[Todeslager]

And I pointed out that what you are advocating for is anarcho-capitalism, and will inevitably devolve into neo-feudalism.

No I am for libertarianism but yeah, I am pretty sympathetic to anarch0 capitalists I think. Feudalism not so much.

I see a bizarre conflation of anarchocapitalism / minarchism with feudalism that reveals a stark raving ignorance of one or the other or both.

[Brysonia]

I will tell you why it ruins the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, it takes taxpayers money and gives it to people who don't work and just collect a check.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I see a bizarre conflation of anarchocapitalism / minarchism with feudalism that reveals a stark raving ignorance of one or the other or both.

It's not quite a conflation. It's a cause-effect relationship.

Ancap or Minarchism lead to rapid monopolization and the suppression of new competition, which leads to neo-feudalism. In Neo-feudalism, while the corporation technically doesn't own you, your choice boils down to do what they say or be left with nothing.

[European Socialist Republic]

I will tell you why it ruins the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, it takes taxpayers money and gives it to people who don't work and just collect a check.

That's cute. Why don't you go to Free Republic, Conservapedia or Fox News. Maybe you'll find some idiots there who believe this bullshit you're spouting.

[The Black Forrest]

I will tell you why it ruins the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, it takes taxpayers money and gives it to people who don't work and just collect a check.

Ohhh still living of the parents?

[Todeslager]

I will tell you why it ruins the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, it takes taxpayers money and gives it to people who don't work and just collect a check.

That's cute. Why don't you go to Free Republic, Conservapedia or Fox News. Maybe you'll find some idiots there who believe this bullshit you're spouting.

Why don't YOU go to any one of any Logic 101 classrooms and come back when an ad hominem fallacy isn't your premise and your conclusion.

Leftists. Sheesh.

[Sociobiology]

I will tell you why it ruins the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, it takes taxpayers money and gives it to people who don't work and just collect a check.

which is rather rare.
~56% of welfare money goes to people who work, the vast majority of the rest goes to children or the retired. out of the remaining 9% most of those have strong employment history and are just temporarily unemployed.

[Farnhamia]

I will tell you why it ruins the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, it takes taxpayers money and gives it to people who don't work and just collect a check.

which is rather rare.

Not to mention untrue. People do not retain ownership of tax money after it has been paid to the government, no more than they retain ownership of money paid to a utility or a store. Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

[Llamalandia]

I see a bizarre conflation of anarchocapitalism / minarchism with feudalism that reveals a stark raving ignorance of one or the other or both.

It's not quite a conflation. It's a cause-effect relationship.

Ancap or Minarchism lead to rapid monopolization and the suppression of new competition, which leads to neo-feudalism. In Neo-feudalism, while the corporation technically doesn't own you, your choice boils down to do what they say or be left with nothing.

And I am sure you have evidence you can cite to support modern libertarianism leading to feudalism .

[The Black Forrest]

which is rather rare.

Not to mention untrue. People do not retain ownership of tax money after it has been paid to the government, no more than they retain ownership of money paid to a utility or a store. Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

When comments are spoon fed.....